The tech giant is said to be building a prototype version of a censored Chinese search engine that links users’ activity to their personal phone number, according to the Intercept.

In doing so, it would be able to comply with the Chinese government’s censorship requirements, increasing the chances that such a product would launch there in the future.

Recent reports have suggested Google plans to build a censored version of its search engine in China, as part of a project called ‘Dragonfly.’

The app would have to comply with China’s rigid censorship laws, which would mean restricting access to content that government officials consider unfavorable.

Search terms about human rights, democracy, religion and peaceful protests will be blocked from the app.

Freedom of speech should be one issue that both the left and the right can unite on. Increasingly you’re seeing a call for increased censorship by those on the left to police so called “hate speech” or really anything that offends them. It was refreshing to hear that both Dems and Republicans are teaming up at least a little bit on this one.

Google (Alphabet) needs to be broken up. And there needs to be a serious discussion on considering that action for the likes of Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook as well. At this point in their respective domains they really are the only option to reach massive amounts of people. They use freedom of speech when it’s convenient for them, then the whole “we’re a private company so we can do whatever we want” in cases where they want to censor certain groups of people. Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube have all come (or are about to come) to congressional hearings relating to privacy and censorship concerns. They all lie through their teeth because they’re not under oath and by and large these hearings have no legal bite to them at all so these executives could care less that they’re lying. Most of them have most of Congress in their pockets anyway.

But it’s clear there are biases here, as much as they don’t want to admit it. And they are social engineering, and they are affecting how people think and what they think of those running for office, etc. If all of these censorship issues truly are glitches, as they like to claim, why is it only conservatives are the only ones ever targeted? Why haven’t we heard outrage from the left that they’re the ones being censored? Watch a snippet of the video below of Google’s executives lamenting President Trump’s glorious victory the day after the election. That session, one of their TGIF sessions, was an hour long, the entire meeting of which was to complain that Trump won. It’s very hard to believe that the entire board of Google abhors Trump yet claim to be neutral when it comes to running their own damn search engine.

China under Communist rule has been a disaster for its people. There should be some law that prevents American companies from helping a despotic government police and censor its people. “Don’t be evil” being removed I’m sure wasn’t taken lightly. And I’m sure they know what they’re doing is dark, sinister, and purely a cash grab at the expense of individual freedom of those in China. Awful.

There’s a reason freedom of speech is the first amendment. It is the most important. This isn’t even debatable. We’ve taken our liberties for granted for far too long in this country. It is out of control now and action needs to be taken soon or we’ll rue the day we remained asleep behind the wheel.

Elizabeth Warren introduced the “Accountable Capitalism Act” which of course isn’t capitalism at all and seeks to put more restrictions and add more regulation. From her website:

Requires very large American corporations to obtain a federal charter as a “United States corporation,” which obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders: American corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue must obtain a federal charter from a newly formed Office of United States Corporations at the Department of Commerce. The new federal charter obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders – including employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which the company operates. This approach is derived from the thriving benefit corporation model that 33 states and the District of Columbia have adopted and that companies like Patagonia, Danone North America, and Kickstarter have embraced with strong results.

Empowers workers at United States corporations to elect at least 40% of Board members: Borrowing from the successful approach in Germany and other developed economies, a United States corporation must ensure that no fewer than 40% of its directors are selected by the corporation’s employees.

Restricts the sales of company shares by the directors and officers of United States corporations: Top corporate executives are now compensated mostly in company equity, which gives them huge financial incentives to focus exclusively on shareholder returns. To ensure that they are focused on the long-term interests of all corporate stakeholders, the bill prohibits directors and officers of United States corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback.

Prohibits United States corporations from making any political expenditures without the approval of 75% of its directors and shareholders: Drawing on a proposal from John Bogle, the founder of the investment company Vanguard, United States corporations must receive the approval of at least 75% of their shareholders and 75% of their directors before engaging in political expenditures. This ensures any political expenditures benefit all corporate stakeholders.

Permits the federal government to revoke the charter of a United States corporation if the company has engaged in repeated and egregious illegal conduct: State Attorneys General are authorized to submit petitions to the Office of United States Corporations to revoke a United States corporation’s charter. If the Director of the Office finds that the corporation has a history of egregious and repeated illegal conduct and has failed to take meaningful steps to address its problems, she may grant the petition. The company’s charter would then be revoked a year later – giving the company time before its charter is revoked to make the case to Congress that it should retain its charter in the same or in a modified form.

What Elizabeth Warren wants to do here is create yet another government office to regulate corporations here in America, to centralize power over any corporation receiving greater than $1 billion in annual revenue. The wording is so opaque and up for interpretation. “The new federal charter obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders – including employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which the company operates.” What does that even mean? Consider the interests? Isn’t that done by necessity already? If a customer is not happy with a product they will simply choose to buy elsewhere. An employee can leave companies if they so choose. With such wishy-washy rules who knows how an infraction can be interpreted and then like that your charter is removed. Meaning what? The company is done altogether? The government completely seizes it? That’s an awful lot of power for the government to have, and to control ALL industries.

This is yet another step closer to full blown communism. Centralizing power to control all industries is not a good thing. It has never worked. And there are much better ways to go about reforming the problems with corporations. I actually like some of the proposals in here, mainly the stock option clause and the political contribution bit. Those make sense and are a good way to control how a corporation operates without seizing the company outright. Further, what does she think will happen to business here if she actually passed this disaster? What would the incentive be for corporations to remain here?

Which leads to the next point, which is she probably knows this has zero chance of ever passing but will help her succeed in winning the hearts of the feral-extreme left. It’s virtue signaling, plain and simple. What politicians do best; blather on about x, y, and z and preaching about major reformations but knowing it’ll never happen. She claims she’s not running in 2020 but I don’t believe her for a second.

The best thing that could happen to this country would be to drastically reduce the size of government. De-centralization serves to stabilize a country. To use some terminology from NN Taleb large, centralized governments are inherently fragile. In order to reduce the chance of a major black swan event that could lead to total government collapse, reducing this central power is key. Name one industry that was ever run better and more efficiently when under increased government control. The education system has been a disaster since the government took control. What more is there to say about health care. Aerospace is another great example. How many times were we told it’s impossible to launch re-usable rockets? Now SpaceX launches rockets for a tenth of the cost they previously cost, after finally being given the chance to compete with the very limited private partners they allowed.

Lawlessness abounds in socialist nations. I don’t think bringing back piracy to the Caribbean was what they had in mind. The Washington Post actually does a pretty good exposé on this.

There have been reports of piracy over the past 18 months near Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti and St. Lucia. But nowhere has the surge been more notable, analysts say, than off the coast of Venezuela.

An economic crisis in the South American country has sent inflation soaring toward 1 million percent, making food and medicine scarce. Malnutrition is spreading; disease is rampant; water and power grids are failing from a lack of trained staff and spare parts. Police and military are abandoning their posts as their paychecks become nearly worthless. Under the socialist government of President Nicolás Maduro, repression and corruption have increased.

The conditions are compelling some Venezuelans to take desperate action.

One Venezuelan port official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to address official corruption, said that Venezuelan coast guard officers have been boarding anchored vessels and demanding money and food. He said commercial ships, in response, are increasingly anchoring farther off the coast, and turning off their motors and lights to avoid being seen at night.

It’s important to remember that this could happen to us. Socialism is often times a slow creep. It’s part of the reason there was such a huge outcry to Obamacare. In the United States, health care is about 20% of the gross domestic product. Thankfully, we’ve elected a President who recognizes this disaster and has tried to dismember it, or encourage Congress to do so.

Venezuela turned to socialism in 1998 with the election of Hugo Chavez. He redistributed land to the poor and in 2007 took over many of the major oil projects. Oil is half of the country’s GDP and accounts for nearly 100% of its exports. Price control, a heavily government controlled economy, and plummeting oil prices have wrecked what should be a prosperous nation. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. There is no reason they should be floundering this badly, or having to cross into Colombia to buy simple necessities such as toilet paper and milk.

Forbes.com has a nice little slideshow here which highlights many other countries that have tried socialism and failed. The dumbing down of the populace is one of the greatest injustices we have ever seen. There should be absolutely no reason socialism and communism are as popular as they are, especially among millennials. Via The Washington Times:

The majority of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist, communist or fascist nation rather than a capitalistic one, according to a new poll.

In the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation’s “Annual Report on U.S. Attitudes Toward Socialism,” 58 percent of the up-and-coming generation opted for one of the three systems, compared to 42 percent who said they were in favor of capitalism.

The most popular socioeconomic order was socialism, with 44 percent support. Communism and fascism received 7 percent support each.

Let that sink in. This falls directly on us and our educational system. This isn’t altogether surprising as the vast majority of academia consists of far left professors and administrators. While immigration is our most glaring problem right now, reforming the education system is just as important though a much longer process.

Let us not forget the horrors of socialism. Nationalizing major industries and redistributing wealth always leads to disaster. The faster we can leave industry to the free markets and disband welfare and other government programs that force redistribution of wealth the safer and better off we will be.

Ontario is ending their universal basic income program over a year earlier than originally intended because it wasn’t tenable. Via The Daily Wire:

Universal basic income is “clearly not the answer for Ontario families,” explained Children, Community, and Social Services Minister Lisa MacLeod, adding that the program was “not sustainable.”

Though the welfare program was intended to last three years, it will be coming to an end this week, announced MacLeod. She promised the program’s exit would be done “ethically” and would provide “more detail at a later date.”

Roughly 4,000 Canadians, regardless of unemployment status, are enrolled in the program. “[A] single person could have received up to about $17,000 a year, minus half of any income he or she earned. A couple could have received up to $24,000 per year. People with disabilities could have received an additional $6,000,” reports CBC.

MacLeod was lambasted for pulling the plug on the unsustainable system by Canadian politicians and program recipients. Andrea Horwath, the Ontario provincial NDP leader, for example, said the call to end the program was “shameful.”

“And this callous, mean-spirited premier sees this as a priority? Making poverty worse? Making life worse for families? Absolutely disgraceful. Shameful,” blasted Horwath.

Dave Cherkewski, a program recipient, complained, “I had a three-year plan and now it’s gone.”

As President Trump and his brand of politics continues to spread and fundamentally alter the political landscape, I suspect people like Andrea Horwath will slowly fade away, and not a moment too soon. Socialism is one of those ideologies that is easy to talk about how great it would be for everyone, but those who spread this dangerous message rarely ever have to suffer the consequences of their virtue signaling. Sorry, Andrea, but it is not “shameful” or “mean spirited” to end a program that would bankrupt the country. Isn’t it possible that MacLeod may have some concern for the rest of the country and those paying into the system in the first place? And Mr Cherkewski, perhaps you should re-tinker your 3 year plan to one that doesn’t depend on free handouts to succeed? Just a thought.

It’s been said many times before but universal basic income at this juncture isn’t sustainable. Theoretically in the future as more automation and robotics develop maybe that will be a different story. Even so, is it the best thing to do? Will rewarding slothful behavior really yield positive benefits down the road? The entire argument against Communism and Socialism is that people want to be justly compensated for the work they put in. Not this “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” Marxist BS. It is far too easy to job the system and human nature is clearly more suitable for a more capitalistic ideology. The gall of Andrea Horwath to call it shameful. Where exactly does she think this money is coming from? Yet another black mark on our educational system that the most basic of economic principles isn’t taught properly or entirely ignored in schools.

An op-ed piece in The New York Times today informs us that the millennial socialists are coming, after the victories of three progressive women running in Democratic primaries who are all endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America. And Michelle Goldberg would like to tell us why this is a good thing. These two paragraphs tell you all you probably need to know about Michelle:

Their races were part of a grass-roots civic renewal that is happening across this country, something that is, for me, the sole source of optimism in this very dark time. Marinating in the news in New York City, I’m often sick with despair. An authoritarian president of dubious legitimacy and depraved character is poised to remake America for generations with a second Supreme Court pick. The federal government is a festival of kleptocratic impunity. Kids the same age as my own are ripped from their migrant parents.

But all over the nation, people, particularly women, are working with near supernatural energy to rebuild democracy from the ground up, finding ways to exercise political power however they can. For the middle-aged suburbanites who are the backbone of the anti-Trump resistance, that often means shoring up the Democratic Party. For younger people who see Donald Trump’s election as the apotheosis of a rotten political and economic system, it often means trying to remake that party as a vehicle for democratic socialism.

The dumbing down of our children through disastrous education policies in this country over the past few decades is coming into fruition now. Even while people in failed socialist shithole Venezuela are hunting dogs, cats, and pigeons due to food shortages, we’re still told that socialism is the way of the future! Free shit for everybody! These women, running on platforms such as free education for all, abolishing ICE, and free healthcare for all, seem to have forgotten history, or more likely simply are ignorant of how socialism and communism turn out every single time. And further down in the article:

Many of the D.S.A.’s goals, reflected in Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, are indistinguishable from those of progressive democrats. But if the D.S.A. is happy to work alongside liberals, its members are generally serious about the “socialist” part of democratic socialist. Its constitution envisions “a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.”

Talk of popular control of the means of production is anathema to many older Democrats, even very liberal ones. It plays a lot better with the young; one recent survey shows that 61 percent of Democrats between 18 and 34 view socialism positively. The combination of the Great Recession, the rising cost of education, the unreliability of health insurance and the growing precariousness of the workplace has left young people with gnawing material insecurity. They have no memory of the widespread failure of Communism, but the failures of capitalism are all around them.

Again, Michelle fails to point out the failures of socialism which are actually all around us. And I think she’s vastly underestimating how many people DO NOT want to live in a country envisioned on “a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships” within her own party or the country as a whole. The majority of people in our country, as it currently sits demographically, want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. That’s not sure to hold forever. As more low IQ people are allowed to come here, who are known to vote for bigger government, this attitude may change. And as they come in ever greater numbers, and as the national average IQ continues to drop, they will bring with them their failed policies from whatever failed countries they are abandoning. This is not magic dirt. If you moved the population of Mexico into Japan and the Japanese people into Mexico, things would be different. Japan would be Mexico on an island, to use a phrase Stefan Molyneux has used before. It would cease to be Japanese. The same thing applies here. As the population continues to be replaced, this country as we now know it to exist will change as well.

The veil is off completely. They are no longer even bothering to hide the fact that what they want is globalism. They’re openly advocating for abolishing ICE (leading to open borders) and centralizing many things which should be left to the free market, or what’s left of it anyway. I do not want to live in a socialist shithole. I’ve seen this movie too many times before. And I think (and very much hope) that there is still a number of center-left Democrats who think socialism is a step too far. Contrary to what they want you to believe, or fail to see, but this push towards ever more radical left policies will tear the Democratic party apart, not unify it. And I for one couldn’t be happier about that. Check out this video from Stefan Molyneux on population replacement for more information on why socialism needs to be stopped now before it’s too late.

The case in the eastern state of Delta Amacuro was reported as basic vaccine coverage continued to fall amid the worsening political and economic crisis.

The news comes as the country faces an increase in other diseases, some also formerly eradicated, such as diphtheria, tuberculosis, measles, and malaria.

Hmmm, something seems awry here. Aren’t we constantly told that socialism is amazing, and especially socialist health care? Wasn’t Venezuela the poster child for how great socialism was? This “brand of socialism” has gone the way of every other brand of socialism. Reminds me of this meme:

Don’t let those who wax poetic about how great socialism is off the hook with this stuff. It happens every single time. It’s the inevitability of socialism. It does not work, and cannot work without being propped up by capitalism in some form or another.

Polio shouldn’t be a problem anymore. This disease was for all intents and purposes eradicated a long time ago. Let this serve as yet another stark reminder that socialism and communism will inevitably lead down a dark path to utter destruction unless rigorously rooted out and stopped anytime it pops up.

Post navigation

Search

Categories

Categories

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.